Scotland can lead the world with 'ecocide' bill currently in Holyrood
Good evening! This week's edition of the In Common newsletter comes from Michaela Girvan and Tara Pierce of the Ocean Rights Coalition.
IMAGINE the scene: a CEO sits handcuffed, silent, in the dock of a Scottish courtroom. He is not there because of a shareholder scandal or financial fraud but because the company he leads has caused widespread, long-term destruction of the marine environment through illegal bottom trawling in Scottish waters.
Expert witnesses describe the devastation. Once-thriving seabeds flattened. Biodiversity lost. Species pushed to collapse. Carbon stores released from the seafloor, worsening climate change, communities along the coast left with the wreckage and coastal artisan fishermen struggling. The courtroom listens, and the law now recognises this harm for what it truly is – not an unfortunate side effect of business but a crime against nature.
That scene may feel like fiction. However, it is exactly the kind of accountability the Ecocide (Prevention) (Scotland) Bill currently progressing through the Scottish Parliament could make real. If passed, Scotland would become the first country in the world to criminalise ecocide in domestic law – a powerful and necessary step at a time of ecological crisis.
The bill, brought forward by Scottish Labour MSP Monica Lennon (above), defines ecocide as the causing of severe environmental harm, whether intentional or through reckless disregard. The harm must be either widespread or long-term – measured not in headlines, but in habitats, ecosystems and years. If passed, the law would make individuals, companies and public bodies liable for the most serious kinds of environmental destruction.
Punishments include up to 20 years in prison, fines and court-ordered restoration of the damaged ecosystems. Importantly, it introduces personal liability for directors and decision-makers. In a world where corporate impunity too often shields those at the top, this matters. What sets this legislation apart is not only its ambition but its timing.
Just last week, world leaders gathered in Nice for the third United Nations Ocean Conference. Once again, they committed to reversing marine biodiversity loss and protecting 30% of the world's oceans by 2030. The pledges are noble. But if we are honest, global action has repeatedly failed to match the scale or speed of the crisis.
Here in Scotland, we have a rare opportunity to do something the international system has so far failed to do: make marine destruction legally actionable as a criminal crime.
From deep-sea mining and industrial overfishing to oil spills, chemical dumping and plastic pollution, Scotland's marine environment is facing an onslaught of threats. Some of these are caused by foreign actors; others are permitted under existing UK or devolved policy. Either way, the law has not kept up with science, morality or the pace of destruction.
That is why this bill matters so deeply to those of us working in ocean protection. It acknowledges that the sea is not an industrial buffer zone or economic abstraction. It is a living system on which we all depend. Its kelp forests and corals store carbon. Its species form fragile food webs. Its health is climate health, biodiversity health and human health.
The bill does not mention the ocean by name, but its scope is broad enough to include it and serious marine harm. In doing so, it brings new hope to those who have campaigned for decades for stronger protections for the sea. It gives voice to communities who have watched polluters act with impunity. It sets a legal precedent that others can follow.
Scotland is no stranger to progressive leadership. From banning smoking in public spaces to providing free period products, it has shown the courage to legislate ahead of the curve. With this bill, it can again lead – not just the UK, but the world – on environmental justice.
There will be attempts to dilute this legislation as it moves through Parliament. Some will argue the definitions are too broad. Others will raise fears about economic impact. The truth is this: the cost of doing nothing is far greater. The science is clear, the damage is real and the legal gap is glaring.
We must not allow this bill to be watered down into symbolism. It must retain the strength to do what it promises: hold powerful actors to account for the destruction of the natural world. This is not about stifling enterprise. It is about drawing a line. About saying, as a country, that we will no longer tolerate the wilful wrecking of our wild ecosystems that sustain life.
The Ocean Rights Coalition is calling on MSPs to support this bill with integrity and urgency. We are asking members of the public to do the same.
If you care about the future of our seas – about their resilience, their beauty and their survival – now is the time to act. Email your MSP. Tell them you support the Ecocide (Prevention) (Scotland) Bill. Tell them not to weaken it and to keep the lion's teeth, and remind them that Scotland has a chance, right now, to lead the world and make history. To make sure the Scotland their grandchildren will inherent is protected.
The ocean is rising. It's time Scots law rose with it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
14 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Scotland's future is uncertain. But then so is the here and now
At the same time, many in the mischievous media exaggerate the transient. Who is up, who is down? What is new, what is demanding attention? Always eager to hasten to the next caravanserai. This week, by contrast, there was a glance towards the longer term. Where are we going with our NHS, our services, our fiscal structure? What, an Edinburgh conference asked, will Scotland look like in 2050? Now, even adopting such a perspective may be viewed as courageous, given the perils currently confronting our planet. As Israel and Iran trade missiles, as President Trump ponders, it may seem rash to contemplate anything other than our collective survival. However, we cannot live that way. We cannot flee for the sanctuary of a dark corner whenever Donald J. Trump turns into King Lear: confused and uncertain yet insisting that he is the terror of the earth. And so it is entirely right to cast an eye ahead. However it may appear at first glance that there is a faintly futile tinge to the entire endeavour. Consider. In 1920, did the ravaged continent of Europe discern that, by 1945, they would have endured a second, bloody conflict? They did not. More prosaically, in 1980, did we know that the passing of a further quarter century would lead to a transformation in Information Technology and the creation of a Scottish Parliament? We did not. Yet contemplate a little more deeply. Were not the roots of the Second World War seeded in the aftermath of the First World War? The constraints and financial reparations understandably imposed upon Germany – but resented by their emerging, deadly leader? Read more Brian Taylor Do the Scottish Conservatives have any reason to exist? This is a set-back and an opportunity for the SNP - which one will they embrace? Brian Taylor: The fundamental battle which unites Donald Trump and Nigel Farage And the more modern period? Were there not early prequels for the 21st century information revolution? Further, here in Scotland, was not the cause of Scottish self-government measurably advanced in the wake of the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979? In short, when we purport to look into the future, we are in reality studying present-day conditions. We are examining how reform might generate a steady transformation which would emerge over that longer period. It is a way of urging impatient voters and the mischievous media to cut a little slack for our elected tribunes. It is about the future, yes, but viewed through the prism of the present. In the context of reform, there was much talk this week about reviving thoughts advanced by the commission on public services, ably chaired by the late and decidedly great Campbell Christie. I recall Campbell for his intellect, his humour, his baffling devotion to Falkirk FC, his fierce competitiveness at golf – and his determination to work with all and sundry to make Scotland a better place. In 2011, his commission urged Scotland to embrace 'empowerment, integration, efficiency and prevention' in transforming the public sector. This week, Ivan McKee, Scotland's Public Finance Minister, set out a programme of reforms and savings – with an explicit nod to those earlier endeavours by the Christie team. Mr McKee is a key figure in the Scottish Government, returning to office alongside his close ally, Kate Forbes. Both advocate a focus upon efficiency – and, perhaps above all, economic growth. In doing so, they are most certainly aligned with the instincts and aims of the First Minister. Now John Swinney displayed another intuitive tendency in his forward-looking remarks this week. His solution to the entrenched problems confronting Scotland? It lay, you will be astonished to learn, with independence. So shifting attention back to independence, rather than the day-to-day concerns of the voters? Was this a U-turn? Not really, no. Indeed, I suspect too much can be made of this apparent change. Firstly, Mr Swinney is a believer, a fervent Nationalist. He yearns for independence. Secondly, he leads a party which contains many whose fervour is undimmed by minor matters such as convincing others. Thirdly, there is an SNP National Council this weekend. Enough, Brian. Away with cynicism. I believe John Swinney is simply sustaining his dual strategy. He feels a little more liberated to advance the option of independence – while simultaneously concentrating for the most part on the anxieties of the people, such as the cost of living and the health service. John Swinney (Image: PA) In short, his attention is drawn by the here and now, even as he offers a potential vision of the future. His opponents are similarly grounded. Labour's Anas Sarwar, for example, glanced forward and concluded that the SNP were only offering 'managed decline.' Still, futurology can be a source of innocent merriment. What might we favour? Ivan McKee is surely right to suggest public services which prioritise customers rather than producers, which share information and thus resources. But how about the health service? The current system is simply unsustainable, unaffordable. Do you see that nurse gesturing to you? That health worker is not waving but drowning. We have to cut waste – but also overall demand. Perhaps, as the Health Secretary Neil Gray suggested, that can be done in part by an emphasis on prevention. However, that will undoubtedly take time – which ministers facing elections do not have. Politically, Mr Swinney's focus will be upon ensuring that the stats are going in the right direction. Education? Our economy, our society, both need the acquisition of useful skills. I recall my school textbook entitled 'Physics is Fun!' This proved to be a brazen lie. However, physics is vital, along with tricky stuff like maths, literature and French irregular verbs. Our universities are struggling financially. But, as they reform, they must maintain the objective of excellence. If they are truly to be world-class, as Scotland advertises, then they must aspire to the very highest standards. And the economy itself? We need growth and prosperity. We need an environmental drive, including renewables, which does not shut down our industry and agriculture. The future? Simple really. Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre – and Dundee United FC
The Herald Scotland
14 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Are you ‘upset'? The dangers of flags in Scottish schools
Ms McDonald also said in the letter that she'd spoken to her pupils and explained the symbolism and association of flags and symbols to different groups of people, and how using the pictures was contrary to the school values of respect and kindness. 'I hope this helps everyone understand where mistakes have been made,' she said, 'and we can move on enjoying the rest of the end-of-term celebrations.' The language, the tone, the phrasing – 'inclusion', 'acceptance', 'offensive', 'upset', 'I hope this helps' – is a good example of the way some people in the public sector have learned to talk, indeed feel they must talk: plaintive, patronising, passive aggressive. I also dread to think what Ms McDonald said to the pupils when she 'explained the symbolism and association of flags'; if her letter's anything to go by, she's the last person who should be explaining it. But as I say, the headteacher has now said sorry through her council, East Renfrewshire. A council statement said she'd never meant to suggest the union flag was sectarian and 'apologised for any offence and upset that has been caused' (more upset and offence you'll notice). The council issued its statement after the local MSP, Tory Jackson Carlaw, said he was angry about the head's letter and that equating the Union flag with sectarianism was deeply offensive (I think we may need to ban the o-word). We also need to put all the apparent offence and upset in perspective. It would seem that someone saw the pictures of the event, noticed the Union flags, and contacted the school to say they were upset. The headteacher then reacted in the way she did, writing her letter, which upset other people, meaning the headteacher then had to apologise to them as well and suddenly we're in a spiral of offence and apology. The problem is that, in a hyper-sensitive culture, we assume someone being 'upset' requires some kind of reaction: a there-there, a soothing letter or placating policy announcement. Consult your granny: it does not. Read more These are the latest plans at the Glasgow School of Art. Really? No more Edinburgh Book Festival for me – where did it all go wrong? A Scottish legend says cancel culture is over. Yeah right The fact that someone was upset by the pictures of the event at Arthurlie Primary is also an indication of how flags work. Stick a flag up a pole – any flag, any pole – and you'll immediately please some people and upset others. The Union flag makes a particular type of Scottish nationalist puce with fury – God forbid any Scottish supermarket that puts it on British sausages – and increasingly the same applies to the saltire and a particular type of Unionist. The situation also got a lot worse after 2014, but we are where we are. What it means a decade on, in 2025, is that putting up a Union flag, or a saltire for that matter, in a school, or anywhere, is not a neutral act. Maybe there was a time, before the Scottish referendum, when flags went up without much comment; I also used to think, with some satisfaction, that a lot of Scots find naked patriotism and flags a wee bit embarrassing. But the referendum changed things, flags led to more flags (flagflation) and now there's anger because the flag you see isn't the 'right' one. Hence someone looking at a picture of an event at Arthurlie Primary and getting upset. There-there. The position the school takes now is that it was not their intention to imply the Union flag is sectarian but beyond that, it's unclear what their policy is. The council statement says the school should be 'focused on a diverse British society' and 'foster an ethos of respect for diverse perspectives and national identity'. So does that mean it's OK to put up Union flags to reflect one of the diverse national identities? Or does it mean it's not OK to put up Union flags because it only reflects one of the diverse national identities? They may have withdrawn the 'sectarian' accusation but where they actually stand on flags is uncertain. Jackson Carlaw (Image: PA) Perhaps if Ms McDonald had chosen her words more carefully, we wouldn't be in this position. The use of 'sectarian' was certainly ill-advised given its connection to the Troubles and traditional religious tensions which still bubble in parts of Scotland. She also failed to take into account that many Scots, including some of the parents of kids at her school, will feel positively about the Union flag and so ended up committing that most heinous of modern crimes: offending someone, while trying to avoid offending someone. She also appeared to be handing a kind of veto to people who get upset by the Union flag but get over-excited by saltires. You know the type. And why is it always me who ends up sitting next to them at parties? Anyway, expressed in a different way that didn't appear to single out the Union flag, perhaps the headteacher could have explained that there are dangers in all flags in schools. There will be some who argue that the Union flag is different and that it's the national flag of the UK and therefore represents everyone, but I'm afraid – given everything we've been through in the last ten years – that would be naïve at best or evasive at worst. Best, perhaps, for schools to just try to be neutral and, crucially, consistent: no Union flags, no saltires, no flags at all, not mine, not yours. The risk you run otherwise is that you start to introduce the kind of stuff that comes with flags. You may remember a few years ago Michael Gove suggesting 'British values' should be taught in English classrooms, no doubt draped with union flags. Some Scottish nationalists also talk about 'Scottish values' and maybe one day they'd like to teach them in schools plastered with saltires. But in this country, we're rather sceptical about all of that or used to be – it's something the Americans do, not us. And maybe that's something we should try to keep hold of. And maybe the best place to do it is in a classroom free of flags.
Scotsman
24 minutes ago
- Scotsman
'We don't feel valued' - Farmer angst over political uncertainty at Royal Highland Show
Inheritance tax and trade deal contribute to general sense of being 'well down the pecking order' Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... With hundreds of thousands of people walking through the gates to celebrate Scotland's largest agricultural show, you would think farmers felt supported. But that wasn't the general feeling among members of the farming community attending the Royal Highland Show in 2025, a year that has seen political change bring an uncertain future for many in the sector across the UK. Political promises Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Rural affairs secretary Mairi Gougeon opened the show with promise sounding statements, including the Scottish Government's decision to reject climate change advice to cut livestock numbers by almost 30 per cent by 2040. However, Tory MSPs attending the show, including Tim Eagle and Finlay Carson, were quick to point out cattle herds and sheep flocks are in decline anyway, with little to no mention of how policy will protect numbers dwindling further. MSPs, including Tim Eagle (second from left) at a political debate at the NFUS stand at the Royal Highland Show | Katharine Hay Ms Gougeon also announced £14m will be available for farmers to apply for funding for the Future Farmers Investment scheme. Some in the industry, however, felt this will only back a few hundred businesses and will instead just 'get hopes up.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Farmers on the ground were fairly dismissive of the SNP politicians bearing gifts, with some in the showground accusing ministers of paying lip service. Uncertain future for next generation Ewan McCall, who farms Luing cattle near Golspie, in the north east Highlands, spoke to The Scotsman about the uncertainty he feels in the sector and for his children, who he hopes will have a future in agriculture. Ewan McCall, who farms Luing cattle in the north-east Highlands | Katharine Hay 'It has been a tough year,' he said. 'We have had a lot of pressures from government: inheritance tax, the ongoing problems with tree planting and the grab for land for that. 'There are the trade deal issues as well. There's so much uncertainty at the moment that we don't feel valued. We don't really know what the future will be for the next generation.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Mr McCall said the declining beef herds, if left to continue, will impact the wider agricultural industry. 'We don't want the cattle numbers to drop any further, nor sheep numbers,' he said. 'We need to think about food security at a government level and take it seriously. We are in a very uncertain world at the moment.' On a positive note, the farmer said prices for cattle are currently good. But it's a small bonus. 'There are mixed emotions,' Mr McCall added. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Our personal businesses have been okay. But it's the ongoing background pressures that probably have been putting a dampener on things. 'I am positive about the future but I would like to have more certainty about how things are going to progress and what the future holds for the next generation, for my kids.' Real impact of 'family-farm tax' Farming unions said they are going to keep up the pressure on UK ministers to revise or u-turn on the 'family farm' tax proposals. However, Secretary of State for Scotland Ian Murray, who attended the show on Thursday, said the party will not budge. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It is one of the many worries looming over the farming industry, including for Mr McColl. 'The difficulty is if I was to die early, my kids would be faced with massive inheritance tax,' he said. 'The farm would have to be sold and they wouldn't get the chance to farm and that's something I feel really strongly about. In that respect, it's not good at all.' Laura Needhin, farmer in Aberdeenshire, echoed Mr McCall's concerns. Laura Needhin, a sheep farmer in Aberdeenshire | Katharine Hay 'There's a lot of uncertainty ahead,' she said. 'I don't think the Labour government, in particular, are backing farmers enough. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Inheritance tax for lots of small farms that have moved through families for 200 hundred years are going to be gone. It's a big worry for a lot of farmers.' At the opening of this year's show, the National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS) called on the Scottish Government to promise a multi-annual funding commitment for the farming sector. Lack of detail on future of subsidies to support farmers It comes after years of uncertainty on how Scotland's subsidy system will work post-EU with only half of the scheme confirmed a decade after Brexit. Sheep farmer and Scotland's Rural College (SRUC) lecturer Heather Kerr said while price stability in the sector is relatively good at the moment, 'it's always something you worry about because, long-term, we don't have a huge amount of information with what's going on with subsidies.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Heather Kerr, a sheep farmer and lecturer at the SRUC | Katharine Hay Ms Kerr added: 'It's difficult to plan so that we can be in a good place when the changes come as they are not things that you can just change overnight.' The college lecturer said while the employment rate for students with rural skills is high, the barrier for new entrants into farming still remains strong for those without the cash for land. At a debate held in the NFUS stand at the show, promises were made from politicians of all political stripes to do more to encourage new entrants and young farmers in the industry. A young farmer's outlook Young farmer Alice Haig, who farms with her dad in Forfar, pointed to multiple challenges the younger generation face in the sector. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'We're not as supported as people think we are. There's a bit of a rift in between people in towns and rural folk, and I think that's come on since this UK government has come in power.' She said the reality of farming doesn't always appeal to her peers, which could explain labour shortages in the sector. 'Sometimes younger people think it's a nine to five but it's not,' Ms Haig said. 'It's hard to get a job that's got set hours in farming. It's hard to make a good amount of money in farming. It's also hard to get reasonably priced housing in rural areas. It's cheaper to live in towns and cities, you get better paid, you can plan for the future. So I think farming suffers a bit from that. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Laura Haig, who farms with her father in Forfar, Angus | Katharine Hay 'It's not just young farmers. I think the lack of support that farming is getting as a whole means we are not supported as young farmers and we don't see it as a prospect that we might once have done.' Agriculture 'well down the pecking order' Elsewhere, farmers shared the undervalued sentiment. Gordon McConochie , a farmer from Grantown-on-spey in the Cairngorms National Park, said agriculture seems to be 'well down the pecking order' when it comes to other land management such as species reintroductions. Gordon McConachie, who was showing Aberdeen Angus and Highland Cattle at the Royal Highland Show | Katharine Hay He said the increase in raptors has been 'phenomenal', but the impact on the farming community and other species are often overlooked. 'I have no faith in any of the politicians to do anything radical. They seem to be scared to venture into agriculture. We are the whipping boys of the country at the moment. 'Our farming leaders need to be stronger.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Retired farmer Andrew McConchie, who ran a livestock farm in Dumfries and Galloway, said: 'I represent hill farming. The only thing the governments seem to be interested in is carbon capture. Retired farmer Andrew McConchie, who farmed in the south-west of Scotland and represents hill farming | Katharine Hay 'My grandson started farming now, I retired ten years ago, I definitely wouldn't change places with him. You just don't know whether you're wanted or not.
